Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sanguinemetaldawn" data-source="post: 3015155" data-attributes="member: 23390">Hmmm, a strong enough point.I guess at issue here is what/who creates the definition - cost/benefit definition of balance rather than the scenario design view.  Perhaps the error of definition is mine, but regardless of the sematics, I suspect the overall point still stands.Its my conclusion that player expectations for challenge for a game are defined by writers of the game, as it is expressed directly (in the DMG), and implied (in the published adventures).  In the DMG, they call this Status Quo versus Tailored.When page 48 of the DMG says "If you decide to use only status quo encounters, you should probably let your players know about this.", I think the implication is pretty dang clear.Eh?  Is that writer serious?  Why would I ever run anything else?  Yet there it is, the assumption that everything will usually be "tailored" (instead of "balanced") for the PC party, and that if it isn't, I should let the players know.Lower part of the same page..."To balance [there's that word again] an encounter with a party...<snip>...You want the party's level to match the level of the encounter..."Eh...no I don't.  I want to create an encounter according to a variety of goals.  And balance isn't one of them.The published adventures speak in exactly this way as well.  Whether its Dungeon magazine giving adjustments to the scenario for party level or the published adventures themselves, the implication is quite clear and repetitive.  Then on page 50 of the DMG, description of encounter difficulties...."Overpowering:  The PCs should run.  If they don't they will almost certainly lose..."Oh, I see.  So I guess they can't negotiate with the encounter, using flattery to play on the ego of a dragon.  And I guess a bribe to let them pass is out of the question.  So is sneaking past the encounter.  Or baiting and leading it into an environment/situation that gives the characters a combat advantage.  Or engaging in a riddling contest, so that it is a contest of wits rather than physical might.  Or attacking to cripple or trap the creature rather kill outright, so that it can be bypassed.  Or a million other possible ways of dealing with an encounter besides killing it.Folks, I am not trying to be disagreeable.  Maybe you and I are looking at the DMG and seeing two different things.  But when I look at the rulebook and the modules what I see is:1) Melee and killing (or running, if necessary) is the proper method of dealing with encounters (except traps)2) Thus every encounter should be balanced for the party levelIt seems to me this is written into 3E, through and through, and I think that is a much worse version of the game. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f621.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":mad:" title="Mad    :mad:"  data-smilie="4"data-shortname=":mad:" /> I mean thats the thing that gets me, that really burns me.  I really do think that 3E is in many respects a remarkably worse version of D&D, and it frustrates and angers me.  I suppose the designers honestly believed they were making they game better, but they made it worse, and I have to deal with that at my game table.  And of course since its the latest version of D&D players think "it must be the best version, so thats the version I want to play".Arrggggg...man it chaps my hide.As contradictory as it sounds, I don't really consider this an edition issue.  Its more "design philosophy baggage that came along with the edition change".  Its not really rules specific at all, except to the extent that one considers CR a part of the rules.  However, it is part of the overall philosophy of scenario design that is put forth, both explicitly and implicity in 3E D&D, and it bears directly upon the development of player skill within the ruleset.Were I to write my ideal version of the rules, it would, in fact, include many 3E innovations (such as the aforementioned FF/touch ACs, d20 universal mechanic, etc.).  I would drop much of the mass of rules, that serve as so much fodder for the rules-lovers.I suppose thats part of the problem here.  That is, I have not articulated my views on 3E as well as I might, and my criticism is that taken as "hate" or "bashing".  I am certainly ambivalent about 3E, and on points where, IMO, 3E falls far short, all I express is that negativity of opinion.However, based on WotC's published work, statements and philosophy it expresses, I do think that in the area of scenario design and development of player skill, 3E D&D falls significantly short of the quality (inconsistently) established in 1E.  That is simply an honest assessment.  If that assessment is wrong, then I really would like to know, and thus improve my game and employment/enjoyment of the 3E ruleset. But based on what I have seen, my assessment seems accurate.</blockquote>

Verification